MEMORANDUM OPINION.

The issue here is whether the trial court abused its discretion by issuing a writ of mandamus compelling defendants to ensure that hearings in workers' compensation cases are held in the county in which the alleged injury occurred. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Because we respectfully disagree, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand to the trial court for the entry of an order denying relief on plaintiff's complaint for mandamus.

Plaintiff, who was injured while working in Genesee County, filed a workers' compensation claim. While his claim was pending, defendants, in their capacity as administrators of the workers' compensation hearing system, advised plaintiff that the Genesee County hearing site where plaintiff's case was assigned would be closed and that all pending cases from the county, including plaintiff's, would be transferred to the State Secondary Complex in Dimondale, which is about 70 miles from Genesee County and located in Eaton County. Plaintiff brought this mandamus action to compel defendants to maintain the Genesee County hearing site. The trial court granted mandamus relief, and in a divided and published opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed. Younkin v. Zimmer, 304 Mich.App. 719, 848 N.W.2d 488 (2014).

To obtain a writ of mandamus, the plaintiff must show that he or she has a clear legal right to the performance of the specific duty sought to be compelled and that the defendant has a clear legal duty to perform that duty. In re MCI Telecom. Complaint, 460 Mich. 396, 442-443, 596 N.W.2d 164 (1999). A trial court's decision regarding a writ of mandamus is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 443, 596 N.W.2d 164. However, underlying questions of statutory interpretation are questions of law that are reviewed by this Court de novo. Id.

MCL 418.851 provides that "[t]he [workers' compensation] hearing shall be held at the locality where the injury occurred." As the Court of Appeals recognizes, the term "locality" is defined as "a place or district." Younkin, 304 Mich. App. at 729, 848 N.W.2d 488, quoting The Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed., 1999). See also Younkin, 304 Mich.App. at 737-738, 848 N.W.2d 488 (CAVANAGH, J., dissenting), quoting Webster's New World Dictionary (2d college ed., 1974) (defining "locality" as "a place; district"), Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (1998) (defining "locality" as "a place, spot, or district"), Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed.) (defining "locality" as "[a] definite region"). Defendants, in their official capacities as administrators of the workers' compensation hearing system, interpreted the term "locality" to mean "district" or "a definite region." Their interpretation is "entitled to respectful consideration and, if persuasive, should not be overruled without cogent reasons." In re Complaint of Rovas Against SBC Mich., 482 Mich. 90, 108, 754 N.W.2d 259 (2008).1 Because defendants' interpretation does not "conflict with the Legislature's intent as expressed in the language of the statute at issue," id. at 103, 754 N.W.2d 259, there are no such "cogent reasons" to overrule it.

In accordance with defendants' interpretation of "locality" as meaning "district" or "a definite region," "defendants divided the state into several reasonably located hearing districts and workers' compensation claims are assigned from definite regions of the state to particular hearing district offices" depending on "where the injury occurred." Younkin, 304 Mich. App. at 738, 848 N.W.2d 488 (CAVANAGH, J., dissenting). The 11 hearing districts designated by defendants are found in the cities of Baraga, Escanaba, Sault Ste. Marie, Detroit, Dimondale, Gaylord, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Pontiac, Saginaw, and Traverse City. There are 83 counties in Michigan. To the extent that the Court of Appeals held that because the injury occurred in Genesee County the hearing must also be held in Genesee County, we note that if this were required, there would have to be a hearing site in every county of our state, and there obviously is not. Nothing within the Worker's Disability Compensation Act, MCL 418.101 et seq., requires that there be a hearing site in every county. As the dissenting Court of Appeals judge explained:

MCL 418.851 simply requires the hearing to be held "at the locality where the injury occurred." In Crane v. Leonard, Crossette & Riley, 214 Mich. 218, 230, 183 N.W. 204 (1921), this Court held that although the hearing "should be held at a convenient place for parties and their witnesses," "the hearing need not be held at the very spot the accident occurred." We do not find it unreasonable to conclude that the "locality where the injury occurred" in this case was Dimondale when the injury occurred in Genesee County and that county falls within the Dimondale district. Although having the hearing in the latter rather than in the former venue will doubtlessly be less convenient for plaintiff, we do not believe that this constitutes an unreasonable inconvenience.

For these reasons, plaintiff does not have a clear legal right to a hearing in Genesee County and defendants do not have a clear legal obligation to hold the hearing in Genesee County. Thus, we believe the trial court abused its discretion by issuing a writ of mandamus compelling defendants to hold the hearing in that county. Accordingly, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand to the trial court for the entry of an order denying relief on plaintiff's complaint for mandamus.

YOUNG, C.J., and CAVANAGH, MARKMAN, MARY BETH KELLY, ZAHRA, McCORMACK, and VIVIANO, JJ.